RE: Physics of Wireless Transmission

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "David Thomson" <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Mark,

Bob was replying to my post and you incorrectly quoted him, but
I'll take the relevant questions.

> >If magnetic fields are just relativistic effects of
electrostatic
> >fields, what are the equivalent relativistic effects of
gravity,
>
>    Look up "Lense-Thirring Effect".

"Frame dragging" is a misnomer.  There are no such things as
frames that can be dragged.  What is dragging is the structure of
space-time, itself.  My theory provides the precise quantum
structure of space-time.  If I get the time, I'll look it up in
my copy of Gravitation by Mitner and see if I can relate the
quantification straight into my model.

>    Note also there are other apparent "logical disconnects"
> that prevent us from finding a "simple" TOE; the charges of
> three of the forces are easily quantizable whereas mass is
> not.

Mass is quantizable if you know how to look at it.  In my theory,
I show the dimension of mass to be orthogonal to the dimension of
strong charge.  That is, gravity is the same thing as the strong
force, except seen from a different perspective.  When the theory
is examined in full, it is plainly obvious that there are two
distinct manifestations of charges; the electrostatic and
electromagnetic charges.  The electrostatic charge mediates the
electrostatic force.  The electromagnetic charge mediates the
strong force, which also manifests in different levels of reality
as the nuclear binding force, Van der Waals force, and permanent
magnetism.  As it turns out, there is a very precise mass to
electromagnetic charge ratio that applies across the board in all
aspects of quantum physics, whether it be with the electron,
positron, proton, anti-proton, neutron, and even space-time
itself.  The reason there is a precise mass to strong charge
ratio that applies to everything is because mass and the
electromagnetic charge are orthogonal views of the same
phenomenon.

>    Also there's wave-particle "duality" to deal with; massive
> particles have been demonstrated to exhibit wave behavior.
> And not just single electrons a la the two-slit experiment
> which with electrons and whole C60 molecules is old news;

The theory shows exactly how it is that a single phenomenon can
appear as both a wave and a particle although it is neither.
Subatomic particles, and hence their superstructures as well, are
a type of existence called primary angular momentum.  Primary
angular momentum is dark matter which is encapsulated by a
quantum unit of space-time.  When this angular momentum spins
within a quantum unit of space-time, it picks up both
electrostatic and electromagnetic charges from the space-time
unit.  The structure of the primary angular momentum is a string
of mass moving perpendicular to its length, thus tracing out an
area in a quantum unit of time.  This traced out area is the
quantity of electromagnetic charge picked up by the primary
angular momentum.  The combination of the primary angular
momentum and acquired charges composes the subatomic particle.

It is the moving string of mass, which gives the subatomic
particle it wave like characteristic, and it is the acquired
electromagnetic charge, which gives the subatomic particle its
particle like characteristic.  Certain bound structures of
subatomic particles can retain this apparent wave-particle
duality appearance.

> >   When people are ready to investigate my theory to see if it
is of
> >any use, I'll be glad to present it.
>
>    And it was pointed out to you that first it must address
> all other known effects before going on to "new" explanations.

You make it sound like my theory has to explain everything, but
anybody else's theory is allowed to explain just one thing.  My
theory doesn't replace all of modern physics, it only replaces
certain models within it, such as wave-particle duality as I just
explained.  My theory also adds many explanations that modern
theories cannot explain, such as how to unify all the forces.
This is no small claim.

>    Does your theory address predictively any aspect of
> quantization or either of the Relativities? The
> Lense-Thirring effect? Matter waves? Neutrino oscillations?

Yes to all of the above.  Of particular interest is the unified
charge equations of my theory.  They explain General Relativity
in terms of electrostatic charge dipoles and electromagnetic
charge dipoles.  The unified charge equations in my theory are
mathematically identical to the simplified field equation in GR.

>    If not, start over. If so, please just put it on a webpage
> for everyone's perusal. This is about the _science_, not
> personal aggrandizement.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

>    Now, physics this fundamental may be seen as off-topic for
> the Tesla group, but I'd like to point out that there are
> many "mysterious" aspects of coiling; the fact that coil
> forms can store charge was seen as a mystery until recently,
> the "racing sparks"
> phenomenon that hasn't really been explained to everyone's
> satisfaction, and so on (BTW, I think the two phenomena may
> be related; has anyone looked to see what the charge
> distribution is on "charged" coilforms? Do these regions
> correspond at all to the sites where racing sparks
> preferentially strike?). There well may be more fairly
> well-known problems in coiling that can be solved by a deeper
> understanding of How The Universe Works, like detailed
> particle physics telling us how to build better spark gaps.

Recently, Terry, Antonio, and a couple others duplicated my
experiments demonstrating two distinctly different manifestations
of charges.  It was the observation of two distinctly different
manifestations of charges, which got me started to produce this
new theory.  Actually, I wasn't trying to produce a new theory, I
was just investigating the physics of charge and it jumped out at
me.

This theory is not complete by any stretch of the imagination.
But it is well founded in its present form and quite workable.
It is kind of like when Newton discovered the force laws for
mass.  He wasn't told to keep quiet until he discovered General
Relativity theory, the electrostatic force law, Planck's
constant, and hundreds of other important physics discoveries.
And people were able to develop on Newton's discoveries one bit
at a time.  My theory is in the same category as Newton and
Coulombs work as it produces the third and last force law, the
strong force law.  The three force laws work together.  The
so-called weak interaction is not a force of itself, but rather
the proportion of the electrostatic to the strong force law.

As for the meaning of my work to Tesla coils, once people start
studying my theory it will reawaken widespread interest in Tesla
coils, as TCs are excellent devices for experimenting with and
observing the effects of the two types of charges acting on each
other.  I'm presently waiting for a custom built coil that will
pulse a spherical plasma bulb to create a strong electric field
and modulate it to any frequency I desire.  I plan to use this
device to experiment with Zenneck waves, which may be a way to
tap ZPE.  Time will tell.  It will be fun if nothing else.

Dave